wat sort of SUPERCHARGER are there on the market I want to put one on my 3.4 Dohc 24v LQ-1 engine.

wat is the best option and what do i have to change on the engine.

just want to be the fastest fiero in the netherlands with a V6 Z34 engine ghe ghe

it's just a joke

The best supercharger would be a Whipple 2300 or 3300, depending on supporting mods.

The most cost effective supercharger would be a Eaton M112.

The idea far superior to both of these is to put a GT35r turbocharger on.

If you keep boost low (10-12psi max), the engine can handle it just fine. You will also need a way to tune it, such as a piggyback or stand alone.

------------------

"You sit here and try to challenge my intellegence" -vega

Hmm, I wonder why?

Aaron - the best supercharger has to actually FIT in the engine bay - neither of those do..
since since a remote mounted type will behave like a turbo its easier to just use a turbo..

he doesn't need a piggyback or standalone - however i'm currently of the opnion that the 95 sfi MAF setup with a SAFC and wideband O2 would be the easiest way to do it

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: Aaron - the best supercharger has to actually FIT in the engine bay - neither of those do.. since since a remote mounted type will behave like a turbo its easier to just use a turbo.. he doesn't need a piggyback or standalone - however i'm currently of the opnion that the 95 sfi MAF setup with a SAFC and wideband O2 would be the easiest way to do it

I guaratee I can fit every piece I mentioned. If he wants to supercharge, he already knows some deep fabrication is neccesary. Remove upper and lower intakes, build short runner sheetmetal lower intake with the respective flange at top, weld in injector bungs, and bolt on blower. This will easily clear the decklid.

I meant to suggest he does need to do something tune, it isn't bolt on, make boost and go fast.

Eh Dan,,,LOL, in ur face about beening the fastest fiero in the netherlands,,i guess i have to put u and Rod in ur place..(DING) (DING) TIME TO GO TO SCHOOL

Ok no really..first off How much money do u want to spend??

Now there r 3 Forced induct ways 1) Turbo
2) Supercharged
3) Nitro

Each 1 has its good and bad points

Now again what do u want the engine to do

1) for TOTALLY KILLER top end and to eat every car on the autobaan go turbo
2) for STOP light to STOP light killer go supercharger
3)to cry and complain how expensive gas prices r and want to have the best fuel ecom that there r then go NOS


lol,,,hope that helps

quote Originally posted by ducattiman: Eh Dan,,,LOL, in ur face about beening the fastest fiero in the netherlands,,i guess i have to put u and Rod in ur place..(DING) (DING) TIME TO GO TO SCHOOL Ok no really..first off How much money do u want to spend?? Now there r 3 Forced induct ways 1) Turbo 2) Supercharged 3) Nitro Each 1 has its good and bad points Now again what do u want the engine to do 1) for TOTALLY KILLER top end and to eat every car on the autobaan go turbo 2) for STOP light to STOP light killer go supercharger 3)to cry and complain how expensive gas prices r and want to have the best fuel ecom that there r then go NOS lol,,,hope that helps

Ghe ghe

I want....
1) for TOTALLY KILLER top end and to eat every car on the autobaan go turbo
2) for STOP light to STOP light killer go supercharger

and to be faster than you .........ducattiman just a joke No i jus wanna know wat is better
And what the costs are thats all

I don't know how anyone can give you a cost estimate since no one to my knowlege has sucsessfully supercharged the 3.4 DOHC. I am attempting it, and at least one other person is as well. It's been Turbo'ed a small number of times with mixed results from fantastic power, to... well "boom". I have to say that the cost and quality varied so much from install to install, and that fact shows.

Unfortunatly, I don't believe creative fabrication is going to get the supercharger under the deck. Sitting the blower in the valley it will sit with its flanges wedged between the tops of the cam boxes. Unless you modify the cam housings or the blower, or turn the blower upside down, its not going to fit too nicley. Personally, I don't really care, having a blower sticking out of the decklid is pretty hotrod like in my book, perhaps a custom cover is in order? I still believe a supercharger is perfect for this motor since it complements the engines flow characteristics, resulting in an amazingly usable torque curve. My blower will stick about 5-6" higher then the stock intake manifold. 3 or so of witch will be above the level of the decklid, let alone the fact that my M112's air inlet is on the top of the blower... You get the idea.

if you didn't mind running piping you could mount the M112 down by the AC compressor (or in its place) and move all the exhaust to the trunk side..

should work

quote Originally posted by ducattiman: 2) for STOP light to STOP light killer go supercharger 3)to cry and complain how expensive gas prices r and want to have the best fuel ecom that there r then go NOS

That is a REALLY poor generalization. Turbo cars can get off the line, faster than most S/C cars in fact. Especially in a Fiero. If you have a decent set of gears, from a race standpoint, there is no point the S/C engine should be making more power.

A supercharger in general does not complement the DOHC's airflow, I don't know where you got that from. Look at the image I posted above, he is losing boost as RPM raise past 4,000. Funny, that's when the 3.4 DOHC hits a high VE and airflow, and really starts making power. Any forced induction setup on the 3.4 should be designed to take advantage of the 3.4's natural power curve, where VE levels are at their highest. That being said, I'm glad you chose a M112 over a M90, your results will be much better, and it should be able to breathe int he high RPM well.

Aaron - he said to complement the DOHC power curve.. that means to fill in for its weaknesses.. you are thinking of emphasizing its power curve no complementing

lol,,i am in no mood to argue now...by what i said is fact and i can back it up..now we r talking about appels and oranges

trying to put a race setup in the same class as street setup...........screw it ...forget it i am to tried.. i will post l8er

[This message has been edited by ducattiman (edited 05-25-2006).]

The last two are centrifugal, I think I've explained enough why you don't want one of those.

As for a supercharger winning stop light to stoplight, why can't a turbo beat it? Displacement for displacement, psi for psi, the turbocharger WILL make more power. And traction isn't really an issue in a Fiero.

I would also like to say that if building ANY motor from basicly nothing, I would have to say that a turbo is a much much better way to go. The implementations of a turbo, and pure efficency far outweigh a supercharger in any engine aplication, and these things are 100 times more previlent in small motors. I think the only thing a supercharger has going for it on a small motor, is its cost effectiveness, as there are a few factory superchargers out there that can be picked up used for anywhere from a $150 m90, to a $500-600 m112. While not having much experience building turbo systems, I asume that if you are willing to make your own intake/exhaust manifolds the cost of a turbo system could possibly stay under the $1000 mark. A supercharger will take at least %25 of your motors power away, and that is with a centerfugal, or a roots style supercharger, the whipples might dip lower than that, but the cost efectiveness of the supercharger just lost the only edge it had on the turbo setup.

One example I want to put forth is this. A friend of mine that lives not even 15 miles away has a turbo on his 02 impala. He ended up putting a L67 (3800 supercharged) block in, along with STOCK heads and cam. He runs a clean low 12 second 1/4 mile, and is pushing almost 360-400 horsepower depending on the boost he sets his wastegate at, while my supercharged grand prix has problems getting into the 14's running similar boost and setup that he is. Basicly put, the turbo has an efficiency that is close to 2% while compared to a supercharger that is round 25%, and this is asuming stock types of boost. The maximum effectiveness of a m90 supercharger is pretty much reached on a stock 97-04 grand prix( or any other supercharged cars of that time) as you recall, they take premium gas, due to the massive amounts of heat generated by the supercharger causing spark knock.

When the option is given, there is really no reason whatsover to ever choose a turbo over a supercharger, unless possibly a kit is involved, or maybe you start to deal with larger v8's (even then IMO a turbo can be a better idea). When presented with the challange of supercharging a TDC motor, you are looking at an insane amount of custom part fabrication, flow testing, prototypes, ect, as a thrown together intake will not work on a TDC. Another example borrowed from my world of 3800's is the intake design of the L67 motor. Dnyo tests have proven that a mostly stock motor, with an intake "ported" by an amature proved a 15hp loss, with just tampering with the flow chacteristics. From my limited research on the TDC motor, I understand that discrepencies in the GM engineered flow designs of that motor can see huge subtractions in preformance (or huge gains in some cases).

Aaron, you make perfect sence with everything you have said in this thread!

------------------
Check out my 3800 swap thread and lend your advice!

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/072877.html

quote Originally posted by AaronZ34: The last two are centrifugal, I think I've explained enough why you don't want one of those. As for a supercharger winning stop light to stoplight, why can't a turbo beat it? Displacement for displacement, psi for psi, the turbocharger WILL make more power. And traction isn't really an issue in a Fiero.

ok here we go again...there is nothing wrong with those superchargers...because u can copy something and post it does not mean u r a expert...yes a turbo will beat it in a PERFECT WORLD..but this is not ..

quote Originally posted by ducattiman: ok here we go again...there is nothing wrong with those superchargers...because u can copy something and post it does not mean u r a expert...yes a turbo will beat it in a PERFECT WORLD..but this is not ..

I never said there was anything wrong with them, just the reasons why they are far inferior to a roots/screw supercharger or a turbocharger. How do you figure I copied this, and where from? Good luck on that.

I've installed many superchargers, and have done extensive research on their performance charateristics. I never said I was an expert, although nothing I've said here is incorrect.

How can you say that a supercharged motor will beat a turbocharged motor stoplight to stoplight?

Let me recomend the Eaton M90 supercharger.
It has the advantage of being plentiful in pick-your-own-parts the junkyard on 89-97 Thunderbird SCs.
It is also sized better for the DOHC than the M112. The M90 is installed on engines of roughly 3.8 Liters as on the T-Bird and some GM Buick engines.
The M-112 is usually installed on larger engined like 4.6s and 5.0s.
The M90 on the T-Bird is set up for an intercooler. If you figure out where to put an intercooler on a fiero, please let me know because I have been thinking about it for a while.
I also see M90s on ebay all the time.

If it will help the decision making process and end the debate, in professional drag racing turbo cars were initially weight penalized when competing against the traditional supercharged dragsters apparently because of their tendency to provide an overwhelming advantage that after the weight penalty was levied they were able to regain by the few seconds it takes to up the boost to counter the weight gain. I think that went on for a while until they were placed in their own class. My understanding is that turbocharging the drag racing world would all but destroy the market for big blocks, small blocks, carbuerators and superchargers and henceforth certain sponsors incomes.

In my opinion superchargers are probably more tolerant of abuse by way of lack of maintenance but in terms of all out performance for the initial investment and ease of increasing performance the turbo is the only way to go and likely why there are seemingly more turbo production cars coming out. The technological advances of today have pretty much eliminated turbo lag on properly turbocharged cars, increased stall torque convertors for automatics and ballbearing turbos, I believe superchargers are more of a dependabiligy issue now than a performance advantage.

I've seen enough on sites like this to be convinced in addition to what I have read;
http://videos.streetfire.net/Player.aspx?fileid=BF43FAA9-B909-469D-A6F9-B2B341D5151F&kw=25&p=0

Hope you're successful in whatever you choose.

quote Originally posted by sd_iconoclast: Let me recomend the Eaton M90 supercharger. It has the advantage of being plentiful in pick-your-own-parts the junkyard on 89-97 Thunderbird SCs. It is also sized better for the DOHC than the M112. The M90 is installed on engines of roughly 3.8 Liters as on the T-Bird and some GM Buick engines. The M-112 is usually installed on larger engined like 4.6s and 5.0s. The M90 on the T-Bird is set up for an intercooler. If you figure out where to put an intercooler on a fiero, please let me know because I have been thinking about it for a while. I also see M90s on ebay all the time.

Let me tell you you're wrong, the M112 is a MUCH better sized blower for the 3.4 than the M90. The M90 is more plentiful, and cheaper though as I said before. I've done A LOT of research on the different compressors and how they will work on the LQ1. A M90 will work, but a M112 would be a MUCH better choice. Not only will it provide a huge boost in low end, but the power advantage will carry through and provide even more of an advantage as RPMs and VEs rise. The M90 will cause the 3.4 to do what most stock supercharged cars do, lose boost at high RPM. And this is not what you want on a 3.4, that likes to rev.

Displacement means nothing in the sizing of superchargers, it is CFM that matters. And although being down a half liter to the 3800 engines, we still flow more air, thus require a larger compressor. Furthermore, what they are installed on stock has little reference here, as the factory uses undersized blowers in order to maximize low end and midrange. Thus the extreme boost loss at high RPM of a M112 on a 4.6l.

The T-bird M90 is no more setup for intercooler use than the GM M90. It just has one factory, but it is not only a pretty crappy one, but has no relevance to a Fiero anyways. Sigh, yet another ignorant post...

Joseph, good post. It is common misconception that turbo cars cannot launch because of lag. First of all, lag isn't the time spent at lower RPM when the exhaust energy is not enough to spin the compressor/turbine fast enough to create boost, this is turbo timing. Lag is when you are at an appropriate RPM for boost, the time it takes from going WOT to getting max boost. So if a turbo car does not launch right, and bogs, THIS IS NOT LAG, it is turbo timing. Turbo timing is why people think turbo cars can't launch, however with a good driver, a turbo car will annialate a supercharged car off the line since the turbo car will be making more power, assuming equal displacement and boost of course.

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed at 60degreev6.com: have my opinions on boosting the 3.4 DOHC. Figured I might share them: The reason I chose to go with the modified Roots supercharger (Eaton M112) as opposed to a turbo... Considering how huge the ports are on a 3.4 DOHC it needs more air coming into the heads reguardless of RPM to become more volumetrically efficient. So boost is one good answer, or rev it to high heaven. To maximise streetability I definatly didn't want to go the N/A route since I would have to rev it quite high to make the real power, probably have to increase compression and find a solution to the lack of aftermarket cams problem. So boost seems to be the practical answer all around for the 3.4 DOHC. Also taking into consideration that the cams can be freely set, also plays towards performance for either N/A or Boost. Why the Eaton M112? Took some time to make up my mind about this aspect. Turbochargers generally speaking, have a progressive boost increase, constantly increasing there output DUE to there increasing output; exponentially till the waste gate opens. In my opinion, this works best with a motor that has great volumetric efficiency down low, but needs help at the higher RPM's. A turbo compliments that need, to put out a more linear power output. A turbo on a DOHC engine isn't very complimentary, the volumetric efficiency of the motor down low is so-so at best. Putting a restriction on the exhaust isn't going to make this any better. It's not helping the turbo spool very well till the boost really starts to kick in, where the turbo will make the DOHC engine become Volumetrically efficient really quickly, then it's at full boost almost instantly. So the power starts off pretty weak, then comes on extreemly fast. It will make really big numbers, but they will be peaky as opposed to full ranged. Great for making good times at the track if you can keep it where it's making all that power. It's slightly lacking in responce time. That's why (and I am making a very braud statement about this) DOHC motors with turbos are very picky about turbo size, and streetability vs. track performance is a compromise. Either they spool quickly and run out of breath, or they spool late and make a whole lot of power. (Again, there is a point where the right turbo is, JUST RIGHT, so just shh. if your a turbo guru. Then there are the superchargers, there are three practical types on the market today. your Roots (modified or standard), centrifugal, and your lysholm (whipple) superchargers. Each have there advantages that you must consider when choosing one, and there downfalls. Centrifugal superchargers are a perfect cross between a turbo and a supercharger. They spool strictly based on RPM and have a progressive (non linear) output. In other words, if your engine puts holds back 10 PSI of boost, your flow will be a curve based on RPM. These superchargers are known for good Adiabatic Efficiency (in otherwords, they don't heat the air much past what the compression does). These are perfect for a pushrod motor, helping it make a fairly linear slope of torque. They work quite well on a DOHC engine, however the power curve will be a steep ramp as opposed to a good range on a DOHC motor. Simular to a turbo. Lysholm superchargers (also known as Screw chargers or Whipple chargers) are very simular to a roots supercharger component wise, however the rotors are different, they actually produce boost internally reguardless of engine flow. it actually takes a volume of air and as it travels from the inlet of the SC to the outlet of the SC gets compressed a little, usually the ratio is about 1.35:1 or so. You will make 5.2 PSI of boost the instant the pedal is floored. The reason this is important is because it accomplishes 5.2 PSI of boost and cools it to an extent, from there it can build up inside the intake manifold to whatever boost level you actually desire, but some of the boost has been made in a more efficient fashion. The output is roughly a ratio of boost to flow times RPM. In other words, its output is almost linear. The downside, since there is always an internal compression, there is always a certain amount of power required to spin them, I have never seen this number documented, but it has to exist due to it's design. And often times, these superchargers can be cost prohibitive, since there are VERY FEW OEM applications for the Lysholm superchargers. Adiabatic Efficiency wise, they are somewhere between a Roots supercharger, and a Centrifugal. Lastly there are the Roots superchargers. Fortunatly for us, there are MANY OEM applications for the Eaton (modified Roots) SC's. So they can be found pretty darn cheep. Roots superchargers are generally thaught of as being an oldschool form of boost, characteristically having very poor Adiabatic Efficiency around 50% and taking a lot of power to make reasonable boost. This is true. But, in this day and age, Eaton automotive has improved these oldschool boosters substantially. Today they have twisted helix rotors, they are epoxy coated, have an axial air inlet, and are totally self contained. This is important because it has improved there efficiency, practicality, cost, packaging and reliability to a point where they have become a hot item for OEM applications. The most important improvement for the Eaton SC is the bypass valve. When this opens, the drag created by the SC becomes minimal, costing about 1 MPG on the highway. The output is linear, just like the Lysholm but its Adiabatic Efficiency is not as good. Did I mension they are cheep? So I felt that the 3.4 DOHC's power curve needed more low end grunt, and boost all throughout its range. I wanted the best streetability, (most torque range) best gas mileage on the open road and for a reasonable price. And then when it comes to appearance and sound, its hard to ignore the Eaton SC. Lysholm was way close in my considerations. Im trying to create a Modern Hotrod of sorts, and that requires a slightly old car, modern approaches and a blower sticking out the hood. (or sideways of of a Fiero's decklid) As far as what I plan on doing to the engine, other then the blower I have lots of plans, few of witch I have actually started, so it's all up in the air till I can actually work on it. I plan on using a 3500 crank, modified for the 7X reluctor to fire a relativly normal DIS system. The rods will be aftermarket Eagle H beam rods for the 4.3L, modified to accept 3500 bearings, and fit to the crank. The pistons will be custom forged slugs, yet to be determined. Compression ratio probably between 8.7 and 9.0, still undecided. Mains and oil pan will be from a 3100, unless I decide to just girdle them internally, in witch case I will stick with the steel pan. Oil system will be relativly stock, as I don't see a need to modify it. But I plan on opening up the drainback passages to keep the oil in the pan where it belongs. I will make custom headers... but I don't know weather I will make them equal length or not, it depends on space in the engine compartment. I do not plan on making any changes to the heads whatsoever, (unless the oil drainback passages need cleanup) I am actually not planning on doing ANY top end work, with exception to the intake manifold, and the cam timing, and injectors. Managing this beast will be a 1227730 ECM, with a highly modified 89-90 TGP code. I plan on running 12-15 PSI and no more. I am expecting 350 at the wheels, 26 MPG or better, two 11 second runs and pass emmissions every year. I expect it to stay a daily driver. Thats asking a lot from any motor. I've seen L67's that come close to pulling this off. but with the 3.4 DOHC, I can see it happening. If all else fails, I still have my Quad 4 pace car, its a lot of fun to drive too. Thats about all. sorry for going on and on about what I'm doing and why, but it's something I am passionate about.

Oh, and second the M112 being sized better then the M90. If you want to decrease the output of the M112 to match the M90, you can easily do that by getting a bigger blower pulley. The boost will run cooler too boot. You can make the M90's output match the M112's by using a smaller pulley, but the boost will run hotter then it would have with the M112, and will start to cut into the reliability factor on the M90. And as for reliability, I don't know why the superchargers would be any worse then a turbocharger. They are designed with a life expectancy to fulfill the minimum OEM requirements of 100,000 miles. Still, we are pushing the superchargers and turbo's beyond there specified operating conditions, and you can expect there lifespan's to be effected. Turbo's do have to suffer from more external variables then superchargers since they rely on the engines oil, coolant, and the performance of the oil drainback as well as FOD. The superchargers have to endure engine heat and FOD (foreign object damage). So I still don't see a reason why one would be any more reliable or less then the other.

One other thing to note, I don't dislike turbo's at all, Infact I love the sound, and the hardcore pull they provide with it's ear to ear grin producing boost. Last time I drove a turbo car (first gen CRX HF with a ZC and a 14B turbo) I was giggling like a little school girl as it was ripping up the tires throughout thrid gear. I plan on making something special for my Quad 4 powered Pace car... When time and funds permit of course.

[This message has been edited by Fierobsessed (edited 05-26-2006).]

That was a really good post. I could only find one error.

"Lysholm superchargers (also known as Screw chargers or Whipple chargers)"

Whipple is actually a company that produces Lysholm Screw superchargers, they are not a form of the blower itself. Another big producer is also Kenne Bell, they produce a popular 2.2l blower that the Cobra guys upgrade to. Anyways, I just had to find some type of mistake in that

Going on further, Whipple also incorporates a bypass valve on every one of their blowers. The compressor maps also show the HP draw plot for different blowers, and the Eaton's require more power to turn than the Whipples I compared them to. It was a lot too, like 20hp. Also, quite surprisingly, on our application, the larger blowers did not require more poer to turn than their smaller brothers, compred the M62, M90, and M112, and then the Whipple 2300AX, and 3300AX. The larger blowers useually required the same amount of power to turn than the smaller ones under the same conditions. I think this is because they created the same amount of boost, whilst turning much slower.

I just edited my responce, (it's everything after the quote) and it does say pretty much the same thing you were saying about the larger blower factor. The horsepower draw does not change between running a smaller blower faster, or a bigger blower slower. Well, not by any appreciable amount, there is a little heat advantage with the larger blower turning slower.

I still wonder what the bypass open power draw is on the whipple's are like, It might not be a lot, but I still cannot find that number documented. It still theoretically is producing and venting that %135 boost it has to create just to rotate. They would have to split the chargers cavity open to vent that boost, witch I know they don't. Maybe an electric clutch is the perfect answer, Infact look at the Mercedes AMG blower... PERFECT use for a Lysholm blower! NO draw at all when not needed.

I personally think if you wanted to supercharge your 3.4DOHC then I will definately consider either a centrifugal supercharger (CSC) or a whipple. I hate the turbocharger-supercharger debate because they ALWAYS have elements of bias...and moot, to say the least. The important thing(s) is understanding the obvious differences...that is as clear as daylight, no matter what side of the fence you are on. What has not been shared is a supercharger WILL ALWAYS REFLECT it own characteristics upon the engine it is attached to. A DOHC motor is inherently a high RPM motor...what superchager can complement this? A centrifugal...but does it fit or meet your needs!?!?. A whipple to me, is the better choice of all because unlike the roots, this SC compresses air rather than 'transfer', this is part of what makes it very efficient...some closer or surpassing turbo compressors (efficiencies)...understand what makes an CSC what it is and what makes a whipple what it is, then make your decision. I believe even a turbocharger systems will net you about the same overall pricing especially if you aren't doing the work yourself. Don't get caught up in the number games...they are meaningless when it comes to enjoying what makes you...well you...

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: I still wonder what the bypass open power draw is on the whipple's are like, It might not be a lot, but I still cannot find that number documented. It still theoretically is producing and venting that %135 boost it has to create just to rotate. They would have to split the chargers cavity open to vent that boost, witch I know they don't. Maybe an electric clutch is the perfect answer, Infact look at the Mercedes AMG blower... PERFECT use for a Lysholm blower! NO draw at all when not needed.

The Whipple simply bypasses air. After the throttle body and before the supercharger, there is a turbe that bypasses the supercharger and feeds into the intake manifold below the blower outlet. It has a small "throtthe body" if you will in the middle of this tube. I'm actually not sure if it blocks off the blower inlet or not. I don't think it does however. I'm honestly not to sure how it operates other than that, as it was not a big part of my research project (Something about hp meaning more than mpg )

quote I personally think if you wanted to supercharge your 3.4DOHC then I will definately consider either a centrifugal supercharger (CSC) or a whipple. I hate the turbocharger-supercharger debate because they ALWAYS have elements of bias...and moot, to say the least. The important thing(s) is understanding the obvious differences...that is as clear as daylight, no matter what side of the fence you are on. What has not been shared is a supercharger WILL ALWAYS REFLECT it own characteristics upon the engine it is attached to. A DOHC motor is inherently a high RPM motor...what superchager can complement this? A centrifugal...but does it fit or meet your needs!?!?. A whipple to me, is the better choice of all because unlike the roots, this SC compresses air rather than 'transfer', this is part of what makes it very efficient...some closer or surpassing turbo compressors (efficiencies)...understand what makes an CSC what it is and what makes a whipple what it is, then make your decision. I believe even a turbocharger systems will net you about the same overall pricing especially if you aren't doing the work yourself. Don't get caught up in the number games...they are meaningless when it comes to enjoying what makes you...well you...

I wish I understood people's ignorant obsession with the centrifugal blower. The only good parts are size, and semi-decent adiabatic efficiences. But the power curves suck, the boost curves suck, and the implementation sucks. A Whipple makes about the same AE, Hp draw, VE, CFM, and every other performance characteristic as a Vortech. The Whipple costs less. The Whipple gives about 2psi shy of max boost the instant you mash the pedal FROM IDLE. It then raises to max boost a few hundred RPM later, and holds this, rather efficiently, to redline. The Vortech? Well, it depends on the RPM. The ONLY time you get max boost is at redline. Now what good is that? The boost curve is an RPM dependant line, that starts at 0 and 1000rpm, and goes to your max boost at max RPM. So you shift gears, and lose 4psi with every gear. Why not use the turbo, at least you get max boost at some RPM besides the RPM you have to shift at.

By the way, any supercharger can complement a high RPM motor, you just have to size it correctly. Thus the reason the M112 is a better match for the 3.4 DOHC than the M90. As for this discussion, I don't think it matters because I doubt you will ever buy one. But if I had to make an opinion, I'd say the best supercharger all around is an Eaton M112. Cheap, easy to find, reliable, self-sustained, perfectly-sized, easy to mount, looks f-ing awesome, large aftermarket, and sounds amazing.

quote Originally posted by AaronZ34: I wish I understood people's ignorant obsession with the centrifugal blower.

Aaron u still dont get it... WHAT IS THAT RATE BAR by ur name!! what does it mean???


is this good english for u DO U UNDERSTAND THE WORDS COMING OUT OF MY MOUTH


Aaron it is not that u r right or that u r wrong...U DONT RESPECT OTHERS OPIONON

quote Originally posted by AaronZ34: That was a really good post. I could only find one error. "Lysholm superchargers (also known as Screw chargers or Whipple chargers)"

who the f**k cares...no one else gave a crap except for u and then u post crap like that....TIME AND TIME u have been proved wrong by many of members on this forum and TheReal Tech Forum and yet u still push ..r u really that dumb,,or is it a thing that runs in ur family??
I really love a GR8 disscusion ,,but every time u post it goes to hell??? u just love pissing people off every where u go..i am really surprized u dont get ur butt kick all the time with ur big mouth..

i wish i could understand people's ignorant obsession on having it to be their way and no one else's way,and every one has to believe ur way or they r wrong
http://realfierotech.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3556

read this post again u tard..u ***** and plead at some one's else's thing but yet u dont have a pot to pee in

Aaron that neg rate bar is there for a reason..so what does that tell u??

quote Originally posted by ducattiman: Aaron it is not that u r right or that u r wrong...U DONT RESPECT OTHERS OPIONON who the f**k cares...no one else gave a crap except for u and then u post crap like that....TIME AND TIME u have been proved wrong by many of members on this forum and TheReal Tech Forum and yet u still push ..r u really that dumb,,or is it a thing that runs in ur family?? I really love a GR8 disscusion ,,but every time u post it goes to hell??? u just love pissing people off every where u go..i am really surprized u dont get ur butt kick all the time with ur big mouth.. i wish i could understand people's ignorant obsession on having it to be their way and no one else's way,and every one has to believe ur way or they r wrong http://realfierotech.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=3556 read this post again u tard..u ***** and plead at some one's else's thing but yet u dont have a pot to pee in Aaron that neg rate bar is there for a reason..so what does that tell u??

I don't respect their opinions, you're right. That is becuase they are factually incorrect and ignorant.

That was a joke, in case you coudln't tell by the smiley face that gave it away...

I don't know what I'm wrong about in that thread. He built a 10, 20 thousand dollar motor and it make 1whp more than a stock 3800. No, not stock, a 3800 with a $100 pulley.

So instead of proving my factually correct information wrong, you insult me personally (Or try to, I can't read the half of what you type), and say that I shouldn't post because I have a red bar. Brilliant. Yet I'm the one ruining this thread?

Edited to fix spelling mistake. You should try that sometime.

[This message has been edited by AaronZ34 (edited 05-27-2006).]

Ow come on Duc....you shouldnt argue with a "village idiot"
btw you started talking my-pride into this M112 sh*t lol

yep ur right.....


I AM SORRY TO ALL


It doesn't matter what the name or forced induction u have,,If u Know how to build it ,it will make alot of HP.....

and if u dont it will BLOW UP REAL GOOD

Aaron...
There is fact, there is truth...truth is not fact...the fact can be the truth...
Your opinion is not fact in this context...it is truth, have you built a lq1 supercharged engine? I will answer ...NO!! you are going by materials written for others 'truth' and basing that as facts to this debate...it is simply mute, I would have failed you if you were in my class ...seriously you are well read...it is very obvious, however there is a difference between "knowing and doing". State your opinion as an opinion, yes you can use data to back it up...but what bearing does it actually have on the said engine...virtually NONE. We are talking principles surrounding FI. PPl have spent countless hours, $$$ that btw you cannot reproduce...and still make comprising statements "ppl's blind obsession"? It is you who is blind my friend...if someone told you..."I want to use a CSC for a project give me your opinions"...state the opinions...and not make ppl feel stupid for even asking for advice...it is called respect...something you seem to lack for others...this was not a turbocharger versus supercharger debate...this was the heading for the string "a Supercharger for my 3.4 Dohc 24v LQ-1 engine"

------------------
the ORIGINAL 3800 II v6 intercooled turbo...

I understand why everyone wants a centerfugal supercharger on this type of motor, they flow nice and are slightly easier to setup ona TDC than a turbo. But why put a $1500+ supercharger onto a motor that has stock SUPER exhaust maifolds (and maybe a restrictive intake). The centerfugal has a very nice efficency curve in the upper rpm scale, due to its turbo like design. I think you may end up with a better method of tuning, as it seems a stock style ECU likes a linear boost curve compared to the mostly exponetial boost curve that your average turbo does. But still, this motor is lacking for horsepower, and all a supercharger is take away from horsepower, thus eliminating what you have came to elimate anyway. These centerfugal superchargers are quite common on cheap mustangs and camaro builds, as they basicly bolt on 150hp, unfortunatly I doubt you would see that from a motor with alot less displacement, that already flows alot of air.

This debate in my mind is still blatenly puts a turbo as the obvious choice, but I suppose if one wanted to do a supercharger bad enough, the centerfugal would be excatly what the doctor ordered for this motor. Remember that the TDC is a very low end trq. oriented motor, not to be confused with a honda motor or somthing else DOHC (which acutally makes tons of low end trq, but is limited by its small displacment) DOHC means flow, flow means torque.

Wont be long aaron till we convince the world that turbos rule!!! And this is coming from someone with a GTP and a 3600SC swapped fiero...... Lets just say I speak from experience.

------------------
Check out my 3800 swap thread and lend your advice!

https://www.fiero.nl/forum/Forum2/HTML/072877.html

That video of the VW acting up on the streets was dope!! That way that car just took off!!! That thing sounded mean as heck form the cockpit as he downshifted countless times and that turbo just kept spooling loud as heck. adn the blow off everytime he shifted...I loved that. That was the best part of this whole thread to me.

Anyhow, installing a turbo on this motor would be easier FOR ME. i do not have the methods or tools to get a new manifold set up, and all the other stuff to go along with it. As it sits right now, my car and its turbo are down till the end of next month. When I was running it, it was very nice. running 10 pounds of boost I was able to whip plenty of cars around here, OFF THE LINE, and on the freeway. In my setup I would have to say that a turbo actually matches the characteristics of this motor and amplifies them. The motor has decent lowend, and the turbo will add to that, but the motor has awesome mid to top end, and the turbo matches that as well. Maybe the problem is, is that the motor doesnt seem very linear , the power is good and then 3500rpms and the power is excellent. That to me makes it seem like there is no low end at all, because the topend is so much greater. But as I have found out time and time again, hit that gas a lil too fast and that back end will break loose.

Also, turboing in many classes of racing, I have read in several places, are outlawed because wherever they are allowed tto run they dominate.

Just my opinion and experience though.

[This message has been edited by XzotikGT (edited 05-28-2006).]

quote Originally posted by darkhorizon: I understand why everyone wants a centerfugal supercharger on this type of motor, they flow nice and are slightly easier to setup ona TDC than a turbo. But why put a $1500+ supercharger onto a motor that has stock SUPER exhaust maifolds (and maybe a restrictive intake). The centerfugal has a very nice efficency curve in the upper rpm scale, due to its turbo like design. I think you may end up with a better method of tuning, as it seems a stock style ECU likes a linear boost curve compared to the mostly exponetial boost curve that your average turbo does. But still, this motor is lacking for horsepower, and all a supercharger is take away from horsepower, thus eliminating what you have came to elimate anyway. These centerfugal superchargers are quite common on cheap mustangs and camaro builds, as they basicly bolt on 150hp, unfortunatly I doubt you would see that from a motor with alot less displacement, that already flows alot of air. This debate in my mind is still blatenly puts a turbo as the obvious choice, but I suppose if one wanted to do a supercharger bad enough, the centerfugal would be excatly what the doctor ordered for this motor. Remember that the TDC is a very low end trq. oriented motor, not to be confused with a honda motor or somthing else DOHC (which acutally makes tons of low end trq, but is limited by its small displacment) DOHC means flow, flow means torque. Wont be long aaron till we convince the world that turbos rule!!! And this is coming from someone with a GTP and a 3600SC swapped fiero...... Lets just say I speak from experience.

Actually I think a turbo would be just as easy to set up on a LQ1. Just a matter of exhaust, but flip a front manifold over, modify the stock crossover a little, and weld on a flange. Our exhaust manifolds are anything but "SUPER." They are bigger than those on a 2.8l, but that's not saying much. Maybe a restrictive intake? Besides the cams that is the most restrictive part of this motor. It is the SOLE reason the engine doesn't pull past 6000rpm. A 3.4 with the camss retimed and a custom intake manifold will make just shy of 290hp. A supercharger's adiabatic efficiency has very little to do with how fast it is spinning, assuming it is within factory regulations. The flow and boost levels moreso determine that, thus providing the compressor map islands.

I wouldn't say 210hp is "lacking for horsepower." This is enough to put a Fiero on the verge of 13s, and move a factory Lumina into the flat 15s. Compare this to any other 60* V6, and you'll find 1 that makes more power stock (3900). And that doesn't even count because one, its power curve is terrible, and two, its bore/block configuration is very different than the traditional 660.

What do you even mean by "and all a supercharger is take away from horsepower"? You know English translators are quick, easy, and free right? And a supercharger may take away horsepower, but it also adds it exponentially right back. And a turbocharger also takes away horsepower, it is just next to impossible to show how much.

It is a centRIfugal, not centerfugal. That being said, they aren't used on "cheap builds." A centrifugal supercharger is more expensive than a 3300 Whipple, and that's saying something. You will see even more gains from a motor that flows more air stock, that is why the 3.4 DOHC eats up boost like few others (More than doubling our factory output on 10psi of boost). If you put 10psi on a motor that flows 600cfm, and 10psi on a motor that flows 1000, the latter will SIGNIFICANTLY outperform the lower flowing. Boost doesn't overcome flow, it exagerrates it. The more your motor flows, the more it will benefit from a power adder.

Flow does not mean torque, volumetric efficiency means torque. BIG DIFFERENCE.

quote Originally posted by sd_iconoclast: Let me recomend the Eaton M90 supercharger. It has the advantage of being plentiful in pick-your-own-parts the junkyard on 89-97 Thunderbird SCs. It is also sized better for the DOHC than the M112. The M90 is installed on engines of roughly 3.8 Liters as on the T-Bird and some GM Buick engines. The M-112 is usually installed on larger engined like 4.6s and 5.0s. The M90 on the T-Bird is set up for an intercooler. If you figure out where to put an intercooler on a fiero, please let me know because I have been thinking about it for a while. I also see M90s on ebay all the time.

The M90 is way too small for the 3.4 DOHC. Don't pay attention to just the displacement; its the flow you have to be concerned about. To get flow from displacement you have to know the volumetric efficiency of the motor. 50% VE 5.0L flows the same amount as a 100% VE 2.5L at the same RPM... and of course if you're revving it higher it flows MORE.

quote Originally posted by nocutt: I personally think if you wanted to supercharge your 3.4DOHC then I will definately consider either a centrifugal supercharger (CSC) or a whipple. I hate the turbocharger-supercharger debate because they ALWAYS have elements of bias...and moot, to say the least. The important thing(s) is understanding the obvious differences...that is as clear as daylight, no matter what side of the fence you are on. What has not been shared is a supercharger WILL ALWAYS REFLECT it own characteristics upon the engine it is attached to. A DOHC motor is inherently a high RPM motor...what superchager can complement this? A centrifugal...but does it fit or meet your needs!?!?. A whipple to me, is the better choice of all because unlike the roots, this SC compresses air rather than 'transfer', this is part of what makes it very efficient...some closer or surpassing turbo compressors (efficiencies)...understand what makes an CSC what it is and what makes a whipple what it is, then make your decision. I believe even a turbocharger systems will net you about the same overall pricing especially if you aren't doing the work yourself. Don't get caught up in the number games...they are meaningless when it comes to enjoying what makes you...well you...

I wouldn't bother with a centrifugal.. its the same amount of work as plumbing a roots or a whipple, and nearly as much as a turbo. It also makes for a peaky motor with odd boost characteristics. A centrifugal SC is a turbo that spins at a speed directly proportional to engine RPM. Couple this with the fact that turbos are not very effective at low RPM and you end up with a motor that doesn't make much power until it gets spinning pretty fast.. which is only once the motor is spinning fast. The turbo on the other hand will spool up at low RPM and stay spooled up til redline, delivering a more usable and predictable powerband.
Once you consider the cost of the engine management system, fuel injectors, plumbing, mounting brackets, (and endless weekends at WCF trying to get it to idle because your blowoff valve is hooked up wrong ) you can see that the power adder itself isn't the majority of the cost.

If you're going to spend the money for an expensive centrifugal or turbo or whatever, do it right and get the best parts (GT35 turbo, whipple, or 112+ roots blower). If you just want some additional power and want to save some money, just get a junkyard turbo and run 6-10psi; that's the easiest, cheapest way to go, and you'll still go fast enough to have fun. A junkyard SC (like an M90) is just too much work for what power you get, due to additional requirement of intake manifold fabrication and decklid modifications.. and you still have to find a piggyback injector and ignition controller, do the wiring, get bigger fuel injectors, etc..

quote and you still have to find a piggyback injector and ignition controller, do the wiring, get bigger fuel injectors, etc..

I forgot to add that, you will need to do the same amount of work the the core engine no matter what you do, anywhere from a $1000 worth of electronics and from what I understand some forged pistons do this motor fairly good.

quote Originally posted by Steven Snyder: I wouldn't bother with a centrifugal.. its the same amount of work as plumbing a roots or a whipple, and nearly as much as a turbo. It also makes for a peaky motor with odd boost characteristics. A centrifugal SC is a turbo that spins at a speed directly proportional to engine RPM. Couple this with the fact that turbos are not very effective at low RPM and you end up with a motor that doesn't make much power until it gets spinning pretty fast.. which is only once the motor is spinning fast. The turbo on the other hand will spool up at low RPM and stay spooled up til redline, delivering a more usable and predictable powerband. Once you consider the cost of the engine management system, fuel injectors, plumbing, mounting brackets, (and endless weekends at WCF trying to get it to idle because your blowoff valve is hooked up wrong ) you can see that the power adder itself isn't the majority of the cost. If you're going to spend the money for an expensive centrifugal or turbo or whatever, do it right and get the best parts (GT35 turbo, whipple, or 112+ roots blower). If you just want some additional power and want to save some money, just get a junkyard turbo and run 6-10psi; that's the easiest, cheapest way to go, and you'll still go fast enough to have fun. A junkyard SC (like an M90) is just too much work for what power you get, due to additional requirement of intake manifold fabrication and decklid modifications.. and you still have to find a piggyback injector and ignition controller, do the wiring, get bigger fuel injectors, etc..

Aren't you supoosed to be getting ready for your finals

Read :
" wat sort of SUPERCHARGER are there on the market I want to put one on my 3.4 Dohc 24v LQ-1 engine.

wat is the best option and what do i have to change on the engine".

I think at the end of the day, $$$ will be the deciding factor...look at the amount of ppl running FI'd LQ1's, then look at fuel management...I guess with an SC it is easier to calculate fuel comparitively!?!? good luck...we are all blabbering...it is your sole decision...

thanks for all the info everybody.

but furst things furst I'm still looking for that ECM/PCM#16196401 3.4 DOHC with SFI and MAF and it can be found I a 94-95 grand prix and the connectors are OBD 1.5

thare is nothing to be found in the netherlands so I need to find a way to order it from the USA. www.autopart.com wont send enything over sea and than i have to find a way to get it to Ryan www.dtcc.cz28.com for the chip

this really is helding me down

relax and take it in small steps.....there r other ways

I believe I have an extra 94-95 ECU, though I'll have to check and see if it is a 6401.

I don't know if I want to hassle with shipping though..